On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 01:58:19PM -0400, Richard Lowe wrote: > Will Fiveash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 09:24:54AM -0700, Stephen Lau wrote: > >> timeless wrote: > >> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Mark J. Nelson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> That said, you may "rm .hgignore," but please don't "hg rm .hgignore." > >> >> The former will report .hgignore as > >> >> ! .hgignore > >> >> ...but a subsequent hg commit will NOT attempt to remove the file. > >> >> > >> > > >> > but an hg update / hg pull -u would regenerate the file, which is > >> > suboptimal.... > >> > > > > >> <holy hack alert> > >> you could put an 'update' hook in your personal workspace to rm > >> .hgignore after an update > >> </holy hack alert> > >> > >> yes. hella ugly, but... just saying. :-P > > > > and causes hg status to report: > > ! .hgignore > > > > which is irritating. Why doesn't hgsetup add: > > > > [defaults] > > status = -mard > > > > Because that doesn't behave how you think it does, or really want it > to. > > While it *says* [defaults], it doesn't provide an overridable default, > those options are always passed, such that 'hg status -u' will show > modified, added, removed, deleted, too. > > Which is both confusing and, in my view, outright wrong.
Okay, that too is wrong. I still don't want a .hgignore foisted on me. -- Will Fiveash Sun Microsystems Inc. http://opensolaris.org/os/project/kerberos/ _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
